Accessibility for All: The Australian Experience

Maurice Corcoran’s article is an example and encouragement for the movement for Buses For All in other countries. In it, he traces the history leading up to the milestone decision of October 12, 2000 by the Australian Federal Cabinet, requiring all intra-city buses to be of low-floor type using boarding aids for wheelchair users in the form of ramps. Internet publication URL: www.independentliving.org/docs1/corcoran2000.html

Disability Discrimination Act
Standards Project

On October 12, 2000, the Australian Federal Cabinet approved the Draft DDA
Transport Standard. The decision requires all intra-city buses to be of low-floor
type using boarding aids for wheelchair users in the form of ramps. This article
traces the history of the milestone decision as an example and encouragement
for the movement for Buses For All in other countries.

ABSTRACT

This paper outlines some of the key events and issues in Australia that have
lead to the development of National Standards under the Disability Discrimination
Act of 1992 (DDA). The Standards will guide the implementation of an accessible
public transport system in Australia.

People with physical disabilities have been denied access to public transport
in Australia and have had as a replacement segregated, purpose-built 'taxi services'.
These taxi services have been limited in numbers and generally been under resourced,
therefore have been unable to provide an equivalent means of transport to that
which the general public enjoy. This is now changing and is the result of disability
activists lodging successful claims to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission (HREOC), claiming discrimination under the DDA.

As a direct result of 'Landmark Decisions' and Conciliated Agreements that
have been negotiated within these Hearings, State and Federal transport Departments
are developing integrated transport systems. A set of National Standards and
Guidelines have been developed under the direction of the Australian Transport
Council (ATC) to assist in the implementation of accessible transport. In June
1996 these Standards were approved by the ATC as a 'technically feasible' way
of making public transport accessible and were then subjected to a Regulatory
Impact. The development of this regulatory legislation has been frustratingly
slow and not without issue. This information paper will outline the significant
events from the perspective of a person with a disability who has been directly
involved in the process. It also highlights the need for all stakeholders to
work through this collaboratively rather than aggressively or defensively.

INTRODUCTION

The move towards an accessible transport system has been a topical discussion
point over the past 7 years. At a national level, there was a significant announcement
and shift in public transport policy on April 21, 1995 at the Australian Transport
Council meeting (ATC). In a media release on the same day of the meeting, Mr
Brian Langton, NSW Minister for transport announced that "public transport right
across Australia will become far more accessible for people with disabilities
as a result of a new strategy endorsed by Australian Transport Ministers."

This was the first real commitment by the ATC to people with disabilities.
Its recommendations to develop a "fully accessible transport system" was received
with great excitement by the Peak bodies representing the disability sector
throughout the country.

Access to public transport by people with disabilities should now be a "fundamental
right" and personal choice as it is with other members of the public. It is
a right that Australia, as a signatory to the UN Standard Rules on Equalisation
of Opportunities, has accepted and recognised in its own processes. To fully
understand the issues involved, it is necessary to explore briefly: a historical
perspective of disability; relevant statistical information on disability and
aging; and describe some of the key events relating to accessible public transport
in Australia.

HISTORICAL PERSPECTIVE

If you have a disability you are far less likely to complete secondary school,
attend university, have paid employment, own your own vehicle or your own home.

As stated by Deputy Prime Minister Howe when addressing the subject of social
justice for people with disabilities, "for too long, this group has suffered
the indignity of poverty, segregation and unequal treatment and has been denied
opportunities to participate fully in work and life in the community" (Commonwealth
of Australia, 1991).

It was for these reasons that the 1991 Social Justice Statement suggested the
development of discrimination legislation to help raise awareness and help protect
the rights of people with disabilities. As history shows the Disability Discrimination
Act (DDA) was enacted in 1992 and made provision for the development of Standards
in a number of key areas including public transport and employment.

DISABILITY & THE MOVEMENT

The 1998 Australian Bureau of Statistics (ABS) survey of Disability, Ageing
and Carers found that 19% or 3.6 million Australians have a disability, of that,
15.2% were handicapped or had 'core activity restrictions' (2,828,000).

Of these, 1,050,700 reported having difficulty using public transport with
over half (544,500) stating that the predominant reason being getting into and
out of conveyances due to steps and doors. A further 297,7000 reported that
they had difficulty using public transport because of access to/onto stops/stations
(ABS 1998).

In a survey of consumer organisations which was commissioned to determine the
"real issues" facing people with disabilities, 88% of all respondents reported
that access to public transport was a major problem as it restricted their participation
in education, employment, medical appointments, shopping and recreation (Downie,
1994).

KEY EVENTS

In 1994, a number of advocates and people with disabilities who became aware
of the progress of accessible transport in Europe and the USA, lodged complaints
of discrimination under the DDA against transport operators and State governments
in Australia. The complaints were lodged with the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity
Commission (HREOC).

On September 13, the HREOC in its first demonstration of strength in this area,
granted an interim injunction in South Australia. The complaint and injunction
was against the Minister for Transport, TransAdelaide and the Passenger Transport
Board and prevented them from proceeding with the purchase of 178 buses which
were deemed inaccessible.

On October 12 a Conciliated Agreement was reached in Adelaide between the parties
with the SA Government agreeing to:

· "develop an Action Plan which complies with the DDA;

· the State Government also agreed to obtain 3 wheelchair accessible buses
to begin trials and announced that
as from July 1995, the first low floor - fully accessible buses
with ramps would come into operation at the rate
of one per week;

· the above mentioned buses would form the basis of a pilot scheme leading
to the deployment of a more
extensive, accessible public transport for all;"

It was openly acknowledged that this action and the consequent agreement had implications
for all other States and Territories.

On October 14, the State and Federal transport ministers met in Adelaide for
their regular ATC meeting. After their meeting, the following formal communiqué
was issued:

"Ministers identified as an early priority the need to develop a strategy for
implementing an integrated national approach to accessible public transport.
This strategy should address the best way of improving transport accessibility
for all groups of people who currently have difficulty with public transport
systems. Ministers agreed to establish a task-force and its role was to hold
consultations in each State, with all key stakeholders in accessible transport
and report back to the ATC with a proposal for the implementation of a National
strategy to address accessible public transport.

This work was undertaken and six months later at the next ATC meeting the Ministers
issued a formal Communiqué which stated that: "Ministers endorsed a national
strategy to make public transport more accessible for people with disabilities
and agreed to release the report of the task-force for public information.

The Council directed that a task-force be established to develop standards
under the DDA for accessible transport. The task-force would comprise of:

· people with disabilities;

· transport service providers;

· Federal Attorney-General;

· Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission;

· State and Federal Transport Departments;

The ATC also accepted the report, "Accessible Transport: The Way Forward",
a report which outlined an integrated strategy of measures to ensure the public
transport industry's compliance with the Disability Discrimination Act 1992.
The key elements of the strategy were to:

· issue of standards under the DDA within ONE YEAR;

· vehicles and rolling stock to become accessible by normal replacement processes
in preference to retrofit;

· a funding program for the provision of public transport infrastructure;

· substantial achievement of access within FIFTEEN YEARS;

· full implementation of the strategy in all States and Territories within
TWENTY YEARS".

NATIONAL TASKFORCE

The taskforce had as its first task to develop a draft document to initiate
discussion and public comment. The disability sector representatives on the
ATC taskforce then conducted an intensive Australia wide consultation process
between July 1995 and January 1996. Over 160 written submissions were received
from the disability sector. These were then cross-referenced by issue and recommendations
and through this process a consolidated report from the sector was presented
back to the taskforce. A final Draft was then negotiated via consensus agreement
and prepared for ATC.

REGULATORY IMPACT STATEMENT

On June 10, 1996 the ATC endorsed the Disability Standards as a 'technically
feasible' way of making public transport accessible and referred them to the
Federal Attorney General's Office to consider and authorise after a regulatory
Impact Statement (RIS) was prepared.

RI Statements are required by the Council of Australian Governments (COAG)
for all proposed new regulations that will impact on business and industry.
They are designed to ensure that issues such as necessity and design as well
as the impact on business and community welfare are properly assessed before
any regulation is enacted. It was also necessary to prepare the RIS for cabinet
consideration of the Disability Standards.

The RIS needed to evaluate a range of options for complying with the DDA and
in Particular concentrate on two issues referred by the ATC:

I. the costs and benefits of implementation of the draft Standards (noting
the 20 year timeframe and
implementation timetable);

II. the likely extent of the market for use of accessible public transport.

The draft RIS was released for public comment in September 1998. I would like
to present a summary of the response to the Draft RIS that was developed by
the representatives of people who have a disability.

RIS RESPONSE

Governments were aware then that the ability to move around one's community
is a vital factor in whether individuals can actively participate in their community.
Clearly people with disabilities, especially those with physical disabilities
were prevented from doing so on public transport. This discrimination became
even more blatant or obvious when there was a worldwide move to low-floor technology
in providing public transport.

Disability representatives were also asked to restate the fact that low-floor
technology within public transport is not being implemented world-wide because
it provides access to people with physical disabilities, it is because it is
efficient and effective for the whole community. The cost of moving to low-floor
technology within public transport in Australia therefore, should not be lumped
onto the RIS on the draft Accessible Public Transport Standards.

These efficiencies also have benefits for the operators and owners of transport.
The 'dwell time' is significantly reduced every time they pick up passengers
and the risk of injury to passengers and staff when they board or disembark
is greatly reduced. There appears to have been no effort to cost these benefits
within the draft RIS.

In general terms, the majority of responses from the disability sector were
concerned at the balance of the RIS stating that there was far more emphasis
on the costs and any negative aspects as opposed to fully exploring the benefits
and the associated savings.

Major Comments

1. The Draft RIS was overly negative and bleak in its presentation and outlook
and did not emphasise the benefits
to the quality of life for people with disabilities
or the improved economic efficiency for the whole community.

2. The Draft RIS does not address all disability types adequately and concentrates
too heavily on the issue of
buses to the exclusion of almost every other
public transport mode.

3. There is overall concern about the premises and assumptions upon which
the costings were made, and a failure
in undertaking a current international search
for material.

4. If the costings and benefits used within the RIS were simply extended to
a 30 year timeframe it results
in a $1.2 billion net profit but his wasn't even acknowledged.

5. That there should be no changes to the Draft Standards or to the timeline
before these Draft Standards are
accepted as they are already a consensus agreement
between all stakeholders. Any changes should be
made at the first review.

6. There will be no exceptions to the Standards because the equivalent access
and unjustifiable hardship
clause already cover those situations.

The development of the Standards and the Regulatory Impact Statement (RIS)
has been a long and arduous process but we have not yet seen the final draft.

There was significant progress made in relation to gaining details on exactly
what each of the States and Territories have been doing in implementing accessible
public transport. A detailed questionnaire was sent out to all State Ministers
for Transport and/or their representatives as a directive of the previous ATC
meeting.

FINAL APPROVAL

The RIS and the Transport Standards were then tabled and discussed at the April
1999 ATC meeting where again it was recommended that: "In respect of Disability
Standards for Accessible Transport ATC:

Agreed that the Draft Standards as developed by the Disability Discrimination
Act Transport Standards Taskforce be adopted subject to the exclusion of dedicated
school buses, charter services and ferries in open waters. Noted that any jurisdiction
has the ability to apply to the Human Rights and Equal Opportunity Commission
for exemptions from the Standards. Noted that NSW and Tasmania endorsed the
Standards, subject to the Commonwealth funding their implementation.

Agreed that the implementation of the Standards be subject to an audit after
one year and that the Standards themselves, which were developed in 1996, be
reviewed after two years." (ATC communique, 30 April 1999) The Commonwealth
Dept of Transport and Regional Services (DoTRS) and the Commonwealth Attorney
General have since been working on amendments to the Standards and preparing
a submission to Federal Cabinet.

REVIEW OF STANDARDS

Recently the DoTRS reconvened the ATC working Party with a proposal for an
extensive review of the Transport Standards prior to them moving forward into
legislation. There was a very swift and emotional response from the disability
sector to challenge this proposal which has now resulted in a working group
looking at some defined technical aspects of the Draft. It is also expected
that these matters can easily be resolved while the Standards move forward into
parliament.

DISCUSSION

Why Standards? During the HREOC Hearing in October 1994 it became evident that
there was considerable confusion as to what people with disabilities were entitled
to and what transport providers were responsible for. "This impetus came from
widespread concerns over the level of exposure of transport providers to complaints,
and the financial consequences of having to immediately remove discrimination
upon a complaint being successful.

Standards were seen to be an effective way of qualifying the open-ended nature
of the DDA by providing certainty and compatibility of measures"(NSW position
paper to ATC, 1997).

There was also a call for providing a consistent approach to non discriminatory
transport. Operators and manufacturers were wanting clear direction on how to
comply with the DDA and were hesitant about investing in further capital costs
unless there was some assurance that they would not be subject to future complaints.

The Standards are being used across Australia by operators, manufacturers and
people with disabilities as a means to check on what and how access provisions
can be applied to public transport. The Standards are by no means perfect, with
all stakeholders having to make some compromises along the way but they are
a starting point.

The process however, has been vital and has by necessity had all players directly
involved in lengthy discussions, negotiations and joint problem solving activities.
I have had the great opportunity to be involved at a National, State and local
level and have learned a great deal throughout the process.

I have had some great debates, arguments and discussions with transport representatives
at a National, State and local level and I firmly believe that we have all learnt
and benefited from these. One thing that we have all agreed on is that the key
to the success of implementing accessible transport is the involvement of all
stakeholders at local levels. That includes the operators, local councils, people
with disabilities and the general public.

I acknowledge there are significant costs associated with upgrading our public
transport system to make it fully accessible but I also happen to think that
its a very good long term investment. I believe that the Commonwealth will benefit
financially from the 'cross sector savings' in domicillary care services, residential
care and income support payments. This is supported by Philip Oxley's research
in the UK and by similar projections to the Australian population by Vintilla
who has forecasted savings in the order of $350 million per year once all transport
is accessible.

Accessible transport is not about providing access to buses for people in wheelchairs,
it is far broader than that. We are talking about local community infrastructure
such as footpaths and buildings, and all modes of transport. If we have good
access the frail aged, people with temporary disabilities and parents with young
children in strollers all benefit. I also believe that the general community
will also benefit.

CONCLUSION

Implementation of integrated - accessible transport systems is occurring around
the country in most States and Territories. There is now a growing acknowledgment
that people with disabilities have a right to travel on public transport with
the general public. The Standards, although not legislated, are being used by
all stakeholders as the 'yard-stick' to test DDA compliance.

What's more, the favoured technology to enable this to occur with buses, namely
low floor buses, are proving to be a success in improving the efficiency of
the transport services they operate in. These developments have the potential
to entice far more passengers back to the public transport systems and bring
with it economies of scale.

People with disabilities and the aged are an ever growing proportion of the
population as indicated by the 1998 ABS survey which as one example found that
55% of those over the age of 70 experience some form of handicap. Catering for
the access needs of these groups doesn't hinder the access of others, it's quite
the contrary. Good access features benefits the whole community and they tend
to respond through increased patronage. It remains vital that all stakeholders
maintain involvement at a National, State and local level as I feel we do have
opportunities to collaborate our efforts and achieve a win win situation.

Importantly, some of the most vulnerable and isolated members of the community
will now be able to travel around their communities at a reasonable cost. Individuals
with disabilities, the aged with mobility difficulties and parents with pushes
will now be able to fully participate in their communities.

THANK YOU.

Bibliography

Accessible Transport: The Way Forward by Australian Transport Council. 1995

Australian Transport Council Formal Communiques. October 1994; April 1995;
April 1999